Application seeking transfer due to non-functioning of DRT and setting aside SARFAESI notice; dismissed for default on non-prosecution as DRT now functions.
Application dismissed for default for non-prosecution by appellant.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI Misc. Application No.131/2021 Arising out of Diary No.3001678/2021 (DRT-III,Chandigarh)
Ritu Singla
Vs
ICICI Bank Ltd.
21.07.2022 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Brijesh Sethi
Present: None for the applicant.
Mr. Bikash Kumar Jha, for respondent Bank.
This matter has been taken up by me through Video Conferencing.
No one has appeared on behalf of appellant.
Transfer of the case was sought on the ground that no DRT was functioning at Chandigarh and there was prayer for setting aside the notice under Section 13 (2) SARFAESI Act.
Since the DRT-III is functioning at Chandigarh now and no one is present on behalf of applicant, the present application is dismissed in default for nonprosecution.
(CHAIRPERSON)
Ritu Singla
ICICI Bank Ltd.
Brijesh Sethi
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
